Appellant's Brief - Florida State University College of Law

appeared to be

appeared to be vacationing tourists “in a good mood” and in “good spirits” (PC-R. 104). The couple drank “six drinks each” of rum, vodka, gin and Amaretto.” They appeared “intoxicated.” 2. Police reports describing Mr. Riechmann’s conduct after he flagged down a police officer were withheld. These reports indicated that Mr. Riechmann, in broken English had frantically tried to describe to police what had happened to his girlfriend. According to these police reports, Mr. Riechmann was visibly “distraught,” “upset,” “sobbing,” “dejected,” “emotionally upset,” “hysterical,” “crying and holding his face,” “with tears coming out of his eyes,” “smelling of alcohol.” “He obviously had been through a terrible experience.” (PC-R. 4565, 4575). 3. A myriad of photographs taken by crime scene technicians of the rental car were not disclosed. However, most of the critical photographs of the driver’s seat, interior of the trunk and interior roofof the car have gone missing and have never been given to the defense. (R.1661-63; 2614-16; 3433-35). 4. Also undisclosed was the 10/28/87 report of Officer Psaltides, three days after the crime, indicating that Ms. Kischnick’s father had reported that the couple had known each other for about “15 years and that their relationship was good. He had no harsh comments about Mr. Riechmann” (PC-R., Def. Ex. KK). Judge Bagley in denying relief failed to consider these failures to disclose and to evaluate the cumulative effect of all of the Brady/Giglio violations. C. The Circuit Court Misstated and Misapplied the Law Given that there is favorable evidence that was in the State’s possession and that was not provided to the defense, 100

and given that uncorrected false and misleading testimony was presented before the jury, the only issue is whether Judge Bagley properly evaluated the various identified due process violations. It is clear that he did not: he conducted no cumulative analysis of the Brady violations established in 1996, he conducted no real cumulative analysis of the Brady violations established in 2002, 91 and he could not consider cumulatively those matters that he excluded from presentation through his rulings. The circuit court entirely failed to conduct any cumulative analysis of the prejudice prong of the Brady standard. When cumulative consideration is given to all of the State’s due process violations, confidence is undermined in the outcome of Mr. Riechmann’s trial. 92 The State’s case was weak to begin with; the evidence against Mr. 91 The one sentence at the end of the order providing lip service to cumulative analysis is not adequate as a matter of law. Judge Bagley’s acceptance of the State’s argument that Veski’s testimony “has absolutely positively no relevance to the claims that Your Honor has granted an evidentiary hearing on” (Supp. PC-R2. 144) could not more clearly demonstrate that neither Judge Bagley nor the State understood what a cumulative analysis entails. 92 The requisite cumulative analysis requires that consideration be given to newly discovered evidence of innocence, along with the Brady/Giglio material. Here, that entails considering the testimony of Doreen Bezner in 2002. She testified that she observed the shooting and that it occurred in the course of a drug deal gone bad. 101